200 Prime or 70-200 zoom for Sports ??

[Sugarh1gh]

I'm looking into getting a new lense mainly for shooting sports (hockey, lacrosse (at night), and professional baseball). I've narrowed it down to the Sigma 70-200 EX DG 2.8 or the Canon 200 2.8L. They're nearly the same price (canon is about $100 less) and the Canon is smaller, lighter and would have better IQ, but I'm just not sure how critical the zoom would be in these settings. Any opinions? (not on the lenses, just on the prime vs. zoom). I'd also buy a 1.4 and/or 2.0 TC either way. Thanks for any insight! :D

[Jman13]

For hockey, definitely the zoom. If you're close to the glass, being able to zoom out is a great thing. If you were shooting soccer or something, I'd say the prime, which might be better for baseball as well, but since hockey is in the mix, I'd go zoom.

[::John::]

zoom

you can easily use it for other things, too

[Hermes]

Sport and wildlife are about the only types of photography where i'd forgive someone for using a zoom. With the fast action, getting close in no matter where the subject is in relation to you would just not be possible using primes.

With that said however, if you have a very limited budget, the much larger max aperture of cheap primes v.s cheap zooms could be a reason to still go with the primes. For certain sports, f5.6 just aint enough.

[rklepper]

I have the 200 f/2.8L. Excellent lens and it takes a 1.4X TC with no noticeable image degredation. AF is lightening fast also. I do not miss having a zoom and in fact you adjust quite rapidly. I have never shot hockey or lacrosse , but have shot softball with it and it is absolutely great. Not sure how you can go wrong with it.

[Livinthalife]

i voted prime, then i read the post. for sports , i would think zoom would be better as you maybe really close to soem of the actions, and too far at other times...zoom would be more flexible...though primes are nice!

[ScottE]

I voted zoom, but with the caveat that if you use a zoom, be sure you use a good one. The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is pretty good, but the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS is likely a little better and since most sports shots are likely to be either hand held or from a monopod, the IS could assist.

In any case, if you are shooting hand held any image quality difference between a zoom and a prime is not likely to be visible. With lenses of this quality you would have to shoot from a good tripod to have any hope of seeing the difference.

[DocFrankenstein]

In any case, if you are shooting hand held any image quality difference between a zoom and a prime is not likely to be visible. With lenses of this quality you would have to shoot from a good tripod to have any hope of seeing the difference.
Exactly.

Also with the subject motion, you'll need the shutter speed of probably 1/1000 or higher to see the quality difference.

Zoom all the way for sports and low light action. I have the sigma and IMO the canon IS would pretty much give the same results IN THE CONDITIONS THAT I'M FORCED TO SHOOT.

Yes, I'm shouting that to aviod a flame war. ;)

[TxDave]

If you're limited to a medium budget, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.4x TC provide a great range for sports and give pretty good image quality. I stretch mine even more with the 2X TC for airshows and I'm still very happy with the images.

[liza]

I voted for the prime, but actually use both for field sports. For optimal image quality, however, the 200L is my pick without hesitation. Like Doc said, you get used to the fixed focal length.